Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: uTorrent Mac vs. Azureus Mac

  1. #1
    Hairbautt's Avatar *haircut
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    20
    Posts
    7,244
    uTorrent will be available on the Mac very soon and two weeks ago we wrote an early review. Today we read that anonymous statistics show that uTorrent will be twice as fast as Azureus, but is this really the case?


    In our review of uTorrent we concluded that we got slightly higher download speeds than in Azureus. However, it’s wasn’t a big enough difference to conclude that it was significantly faster than Azureus. Slyck posted an article in which they publish statistical data they received from an anonymous source. According to these statistics uTorrent is more than twice as fast as Azureus, something that I find hard to believe. Here’s what Slyck’s source reports:

    Azureus Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 297 KB/s
    Average Rate: 235 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 155 MB
    Average CPU: 20%

    µTorrent Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 840KB/s
    Average Rate: 698 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 14 MB
    Average CPU: 6%

    Slyck received these stats from an anonymous source. Probably someone working at BitTorrent Inc because these stats are a little subjective to say the least. It is hard to get differences like this without cheating the protocol, something that Gilles BianRosa, CEO of Azureus, agrees with:

    “We are not aware of any such stats, and clearly would doubt their validity. BitTorrent is a standard, and clients have, by design, limited ways to optimize transfer speeds. We have implemented features to optimize “around” the protocol, such as PeerExchange, but getting such wide variations without “bastardizing” the protocol beyond recognition (and making it not compliant/compatible in the process) make these numbers look VERY suspicious, if not ridiculous.”

    I’ve been in the position to test an Alpha version of the Mac version of BitTorrent and I also tested Azureus’ Mac version and I came up with figures that clearly favor uTorrent, but not as dramatically as the statistics provided by BitTorrent Inc the anonymous source.

    I decided to run my own comparison test using the exact same setup for both clients. The results are based on downloading 3 .torrent files that differed in swarm size and file size. Here’s what I found:

    Azureus Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 1.42 MB/s
    Average Rate: 769 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 130 MB
    Average CPU: 18%

    µTorrent Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 1.28 MB/s
    Average Rate: 788 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 16 MB
    Average CPU: 7%

    The results are quite clear. It is hard to conclude that downloads will go faster with Azureus or uTorrent. Perhaps a difference can be found in a scientific and controlled setting, but no significant difference is observed in a real-life setting. One thing is clear though, the huge difference in download speed reported by Slyck’s anonymous source doesn’t make sense.

    What we can see from both comparisons is that uTorrent for Mac, just like its Windows counterpart, uses less CPU and RAM. This is definitely a reason for me, and probably a lot of other BitTorrent users with me, to try uTorrent as soon as it’s released.

    Source: TorrentFreak
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    Last edited by Alien5; Jun 6th, 2006 at
    06:36 PM..

  2. News (Archive)   -   #2
    Demigod's Avatar Poster BT Rep: +35BT Rep +35BT Rep +35BT Rep +35BT Rep +35BT Rep +35BT Rep +35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    492
    Azureus Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 297 KB/s
    Average Rate: 235 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 155 MB
    Average CPU: 20%

    µTorrent Mac
    Max Rate Seen: 840KB/s
    Average Rate: 698 KB/s
    Consumed RAM: 14 MB
    Average CPU: 6%
    The Slyck tests seems to be either very inaccuate or biased.

    The RAM and CPU comparisons make sense but there's no way in hell to explain the huge differences in speed if they were using the same torrents. After all, I always thought that speeds were, for the most part, dependent on the swarm and not the client. Perhaps Azureus wasn't configured properly.

  3. News (Archive)   -   #3
    KevinGarnet's Avatar Filesharing lover BT Rep: +3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lithuania
    Age
    36
    Posts
    618
    it seems like utorrent is better on all OS..

  4. News (Archive)   -   #4
    Wilton331's Avatar Poster BT Rep: +6BT Rep +6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    195
    Is there a release date on uTorrent OS X?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •